If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think we should stick to facts. After the trade we were 14-13. Nuggets after the trade went 18-7. That's all you need to know about Melo's impact.

seriously, so you are saying over the 8 years of melos careers; if you replaced him with that current nugget squad they would be as good as the they were with melo ? Stop it.

you cannot take a sample size of 27 games, with injuries, and a depleted overall roster and claim that as being the sum of a season.

its foolish to consider being that they reeled off multiple wins before billups went out and melo strained his elbow.

I was speaking in terms of an entire season; if you want to make a list of teams and the wins gallo and chandler would add to them go for it, but I would beg to differ if you believe gallo and chandler would provide more wins than carmelo anthony to any of the teams I listed.

as far as the nuggets going 18-7

they still kept their entire team in tact, and added several good role players to the fold.

they lost bench scrubs and their two best players; but kept their entire core together of jr smith, nene, affalo, etc.

I don't think it's as easy as guess work. He'd have a winning impact on any team. Numbers are kind of irrelevant when you consider the myriad of circumstances even getting Melo would incur.

Basically, any and every team would be better with CA. It all depends how much they sacrifice in acquiring him: as it did with us, which is still a process stuck in limbo.

It seems you've overlooked a mere thousand circumstances. Well done to you!

well i did factor in the consequences, and pieces those particular teams have in place, and would need to give up. the bottom line is, you would have to give up a brook lopez for the nets, but I still feel that a team with deron williams and melo, and role players would win over 50 games, while on the other hand a team like the cavs would have to give up their two first round draft picks, and future picks from this year and next, and melo would still get them to about 41 teams, with a defensive mind set surround his abilty to single handedly win games.

gallinari and chandler try but they rely on the system of a team, to get easy looks, open threes, and mis matches,

melo creates mis matches, initiates the system of a team, can create his own open threes, and gets easy looks by getting into position to score any where on the floor.

If I am reading the OP right, with melo the raptors go from scrubs to a .500 team like the knicks? Clearly there is a bit of a stretch and a bias among knicks fans as to how much impact Melo has.

However, in the league there are maybe 10 - 15 players that impact the floor more then melo does and on offense there may be none. But equating that to a win's total on each team is impossible as circumstance would be different for any team that traded for melo.

Personally I like to think that adding melo was not a half season shot at getting to the finals or adding wins in the 2010-11 season. It was a long term investment that solidified our core and allows us to move forward with certainty. It allowed for an increased level of camaraderie and chemistry heading into the next season. And on a talent level we greatly increased the starting line up's ability to put points on the board.

Think about it like this: what players WOULDN'T you trade for Melo? Chandler and Gallo? I think I would of considered trading Amar'e if it got us back Nene + birdman or JR with Melo. In the league I'd probably not trade Lebron or Dwade, Howard, Dirk, Rose, MAYBE durrant only because he's slightly younger and may have more miles to give on his legs. Outside of that select list I think you'd have to be crazy to not get one of the top players in the league. I think LA would trade Kobe for Melo, let alone Bynum.

Exactly. Before the trade we had a team which showed some signs of chemistry. Now we have 2 overrated superstars who can't co-exist together, can't make each other better, can't make their teammates better. Two selfish scorers. And aging Billups + bunch of scrubs. Even if we get 3rd superstar (which is likely not going to happen anyway because we have no pieces to trade and new CBA may not allow this to happen) still we would get owned by Bulls or Heat.

Exactly. Before the trade we had a team which showed some signs of chemistry. Now we have 2 overrated superstars who can't co-exist together, can't make each other better, can't make their teammates better. Two selfish scorers. And aging Billups + bunch of scrubs. Even if we get 3rd superstar (which is likely not going to happen anyway because we have no pieces to trade and new CBA may not allow this to happen) still we would get owned by Bulls or Heat.

Ok ok enough.. The team pre trade was NEVER going to win a title and were only 2 games over .500 and well on it's way to going under. We were starting to struggle around all star break and we're lucky to still be over .500 when we made the Melo trade.. Now if you're gonna base your whole opinion on a team who had little time to prepare, no training camp and was forced to gell in the midst of a playoff push then thats on you.. Doesn't seem very smart tho..

Is Melo a better overall player than Chandler and Gallo and does he make a larger impact on a team? Sure, no question.

Was he worth any future chance at building a contender when he could have come to the Knicks for free had he not been so greedy? No.

Everyone seems to make the Melo trade was an either/or, black-and-white issue. That he was our only chance at building a championship caliber team and that we HAD to get him at all cost and anything and everything was worth it to get him. Some of us disagree. I can think of a dozen or so scenarios involving realistic trades and free agent signings that would have made the Knicks a much more competitive team than the one we may be stuck with under a more restrictive CBA.

We're not as good some people on this site think. Billups, Melo, Amare, Turiaf, Fields, with Douglas off the bench and zero cap flexibiltiy, draft picks and assets is not winning any titles anytime soon. They'll be one of the better teams in the East for sure. But is that what this was all about? Being top 4 and knocked out in the 2nd round every year? It was worth all that to move up two spots? If so, I would have preferred the old team. They were much more fun to root for.

And suppose Melo didn't sign with us or was traded to the Nets instead? Suppose he decided that he needed to get paid now because no one knew what the new league was going to be like in terms of compensation. You'd be an idiot to not sign for your million's now. I'm glad that Anthony is not stupid enough to go that route. It shows a great level of intelligence and business savvy.

I mean, can you really blame the guy for wanting to have his financial situation solidified? I don't think any shrewd businessman would turn down the offer.

Denver was going to trade melo one way or another. And if they traded him for beans to the nets and they made a push to the playoffs or even if he just liked playing there and decided it was close enough to "home" with the shift to Brooklyn and all then we would look like chumps.

It's not as "black-and-white" as letting him walk to FA and being sure he'd sign here. The knicks made a good move to get him and lost a bunch of players that at the end of the day are replaceable. A player of Anthony's talent is not easily replaced. Add to your considerations that having him for the end of the season and playoff series allowed our players to gel, our staff to evaluate and our management to make moves and discuss with certainty and I beleive it was a good trade.

If the passing of time proves you to be right LJ4pt, then perhaps we will look back on this as another decade of remorse and "what if's" but i'd rather the "what if" of pulling that trigger then the "what if" we would live with from keeping chander and gallo.

And suppose Melo didn't sign with us or was traded to the Nets instead? Suppose he decided that he needed to get paid now because no one knew what the new league was going to be like in terms of compensation. You'd be an idiot to not sign for your million's now. I'm glad that Anthony is not stupid enough to go that route. It shows a great level of intelligence and business savvy.

I mean, can you really blame the guy for wanting to have his financial situation solidified? I don't think any shrewd businessman would turn down the offer.

Denver was going to trade melo one way or another. And if they traded him for beans to the nets and they made a push to the playoffs or even if he just liked playing there and decided it was close enough to "home" with the shift to Brooklyn and all then we would look like chumps.

It's not as "black-and-white" as letting him walk to FA and being sure he'd sign here. The knicks made a good move to get him and lost a bunch of players that at the end of the day are replaceable. A player of Anthony's talent is not easily replaced. Add to your considerations that having him for the end of the season and playoff series allowed our players to gel, our staff to evaluate and our management to make moves and discuss with certainty and I beleive it was a good trade.

If the passing of time proves you to be right LJ4pt, then perhaps we will look back on this as another decade of remorse and "what if's" but i'd rather the "what if" of pulling that trigger then the "what if" we would live with from keeping chander and gallo.

This exactly. I'm not gonna kill him for wanting his money when I would've done the exact same thing.. A few million dollars in difference is a big deal. I think LJ looks at it from a fan's prospective and thinks " Ah whats the big deal, either way you'll still be making millions.. Pre New CBA or post New CBA" when in actuality you should see it from an athlete who has a family to support's point of view.